Appeal No. 1999-0498
Application 08/532,225
IEEE Micro, June 1991, pages 10-13 and 63-73.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Shebanow in
view of Popescu and further in view of Nguyen. Claims 29, 30
and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Popescu in view of Nguyen.
Claims 31-33, 35 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Popescu in view of
Nguyen and further in view of Shebanow.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007